Every major religion in the world recognizes the phenomenon of Evil. But rationalists have a problem with understanding its force, or its presence. They look for a logical explanation. It does not take much rationality to recognize evil leaders and their movements: e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Milosevic, Taliban and Osman bin Laden. There is little point in arguing about the “provocation” for evil. Yet, some rationalist intellectuals have admonished the US for its lack of understanding of terrorism. For example, in this very space three days ago, Bharat Bhushan wrote: “Terrorism flourishes in a cesspool of grievances…If the whole world is to be homogenized relentlessly in the image of America, then how will the differences of religion, culture and indigenous ways of life survive? The McDonaldisation of the world may not be the answer that people outside America are seeking. The US needs to recognize this”.

Recognizing evil as evil does not get us very far. True. But recognition does get us away from trying to find justification for acts of terrorism. There have been grievances, and there will continue to be. What was Hitler's grievance against Jews; or Stalin's grievance against his own people, or the Taliban's grievance against Buddhism and ordinary Afghans; or bin Laden's grievance against civilization? What is abundantly clear is that most of us do not commit evil to redress past or present wrongs, perceived or otherwise. We do fight and kill for our beliefs, but the line towards evil is crossed by very few men. And when such individuals have the power, they can destroy, and destroy innocent men and institutions, big time. Seeking an explanation for the actions of those who have crossed the line is not very helpful; indeed, it is macabre to do so.

But how is the line to be recognized? How does one differentiate between the terror of the state and terror unleashed by those opposed to the state? How does one distinguish between freedom fighters and terrorism? Between a Stalin and a Mao, or between Idi Amin and Pinochet? One does not, and one does not need to. If evil is inherently not recognized as evil, it is not evil.

The identification of evil helps in providing a roadmap for the appropriate policy response. First, is its targeting and elimination. It is not Arabs or Muslims who are evil, but rather a small proportion of them - just as Germans were not evil, nor were Ugandans, nor were Russians, nor were Cambodians, and nor were Bosnians. If capture and trial are possible (as with Milosevic and his gang of evil) that is clearly the preferred policy. If not, then elimination by other means is desirable, and this can conceivably involve loss of innocent lives (as in Kosovo). Unfortunately, the tradeoff is that some innocents will be killed so that several multiples more can have freedom. But it is a tradeoff civilized and free societies have to make.

After the elimination of the major manifestations of evil, policy makers should aim at decreasing evil's ability to seduce others into its fold - as provided by examples of leaders like Hitler, Stalin etc. These people unleashed terror with the active support of several other individuals and institutions. Elimination of evil front men and their institutions will not solve the problems present in the Middle East, in Sri Lanka, and in Kashmir. This is the genuine challenge before the civilized world today - and it is not as if desirable (i.e. force of history) solutions are not known. Jerusalem as an international city, independence for Tamils in Sri Lanka, and plebiscite in Kashmir will have to form the beginning of a new world order, a world where evil will be less. Albert Hirschman had talked about Exit, Voice and Loyalty as the three pillars of a free society. Governments, and political leaders often overlook the first, while demanding the proliferation of the other two.

The world changed on Sept. 11, but had changed in several important ways a decade earlier. The division of the Russian empire into several smaller countries implied that we all had to change our notions of a nation state. Simply put, conducting a Civil War by the state to defend its "inherited" borders is no longer justifiable. People need an exit option. This is a world of consenting adults, and if some people want to disassociate, surely they should be allowed to do so. A civilized society can set up rules for such disengagement - a two-thirds (rather than a majority) vote could be made a necessary condition, along with payment in full of all dues to the central government. And elections supervised by an international peace keeping force is part of the package - as well as its continued presence afterwards to ensure a long lasting transition.

In this universal tragedy, there are important lessons for all of us. One of the three major trouble spots in the world is in India; the second is in Sri Lanka. Our hard-line against terrorism has been vindicated. This has led some observers to suggest that our nuclear bomb adventure in 1998 was justified! Sanjaya Baru, Financial Express, Sept. 13, "It took India's nuclear tests in May 1998 to wake up the pragmatists in the US security establishment and sideline the non-proliferation ideologues…Jehadi terrorism will hurt us more than (the nuclear race with Pakistan)". Little do analysts like him realize that terrorists with nuclear bombs is the doomsday scenario. The link between access to nuclear bombs and terrorism clearly increased with India's adventures, and Pakistan's me too response. Rather than recognizing this danger, it is twisted to suggest to ourselves, and Americans, that we were always right on terrorism and nuclear explosions.

One strong lesson of the evil of terrorism is that there is little that civilized societies can do to permanently guard against its affliction. If the best security apparatus in the world could not prevent itself against suicide missions, and no one really can, then Indian establishments face a severe threat. Pakistan has been permanently weakened because of its support of terrorism, and the Taliban. This presents an opportunity for India to reach a just solution for the Kashmir problem - and among the possible solutions, a plebiscite in Kashmir (excluding Jammu and Ladakh) with exit (independence) as a third option, has to be given due consideration.